Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50676
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
Doesn't it seem obvious that the witnesses came forward after Laci was reported missing, and after Scott provided police with a description of what she was allegedly wearing when he last saw her?
Yes. And thank you for completing this circle.
Yes. It seems obvious to me that the witnesses didn't independently state she was wearing black pants and a white top, but rather, agreed with that information they were told.
But before I could conclude that, I wanted to see if maybe by some chance they didn't already know about the black pants and white top - for example, if Peterson provided that information weeks into the investigation.
I wasn't there so I don't know what happened but I do think that the numerous witnesses who claimed to have seen Laci on that morning should have been taken more seriously.
I don't believe that something that can be changed so quickly and easily such as clothing should be used as hard evidence.
It also sounds like the dog was one that got out frequently so the dog being out prior to a walk with his leash on doesn't seem out of the question.
That's an assumption. I have known some young, naïve women who might do something just like that.
Neither one of us knows what happened to Laci. The case was circumstantial.
We know exactly what happened to Laci. She was murdered and dumped in the ocean. Her husband told police during his first interview that she was most likely attacked by vagrants for her jewelry in the park. He spent the day on the ocean, and his family washed up on the shore for months later next to where he was fishing.
Why do you think that witnesses weren't taken seriously?
"In the nearly 17-month long investigation that led up to Scott Peterson's double murder trial, police fielded more than 10,000 tips, employed more than 300 officers and worked with about 90 separate agencies, the lead detective in the case testified Tuesday."
That presupposes that the judge knew that the alternate that he would seat on the jury would vote along with the remaining jurors. How could he know that? As far as he knew, the new juror could have been an obstacle to the process too. The jury foreman did not think that Scott was innocent, he couldn't make up his mind and insisted on going over the same evidence again and again. It wasn't that he wanted to review evidence that the other jurors objected to, he wanted to keep rehashing the same thing over and over and couldn't make a decision. When juries don't agree or are stuck in deliberations, they go to the judge, the judge will instruct them to continue to deliberate. This is of course up to the discretion of the judge, but this process usually repeats several times before a judge will declare a mistrial. In this case the jury foreman asked to get off of the case, what is the judge supposed to do say no?
lol, I couldn't agree more. I am actually disappointed with A & E. They are presenting this as a documentary, but it is very biased and has inaccuracies and misrepresentations. It's obviously pro-Scott, not a balanced look at the issues.
In this new climate of "fake news", it seems that the concept of "documentary" has become an anti-signifier.
Why would you believe someone about when he was at the house in the morning when he has changed his statement about when he was there? Rawlins did not provide a range of time when he was at the house, he stated two completely different times. He doesn't know when he was there, and it appears that he is shifting his time to accommodate whatever Scott's appeal wants him to say.
I believe him slightly more than the burglars. The police time of the incident comes from the thieves, besides he still had a 6:30am tv spot that day. I don't believe he got there at 6:15 for a 6:30 tv spot.
Yes. It seems obvious to me that the witnesses didn't independently state she was wearing black pants and a white top, but rather, agreed with that information they were told.
But before I could conclude that, I wanted to see if maybe by some chance they didn't already know about the black pants and white top - for example, if Peterson provided that information weeks into the investigation.
People were looking for a missing woman wearing specific clothing as soon as Laci was reported missing by her step-father. Lots of people saw all sorts of women wearing clothes that matched the information provided by Scott.
We know now that it doesn't matter how many people saw women wearing that outfit because Laci was in fact wearing something different when she was murdered.
If you know how she was murdered then you know more then anyone besides the person who killed her.
She had several broken ribs. That would not result in blood loss, but it most certainly would severely disable a pregnant woman. There's no blood at the crime scene - which I'm defining as the last place where she was known to be alive - so what could have happened between broken ribs and death that did not result in blood loss?
Do you think she was duct taped from shoulder to crotch and around her torso before she was dead?
I believe him slightly more than the burglars. The police time of the incident comes from the thieves, besides he still had a 6:30am tv spot that day. I don't believe he got there at 6:15 for a 6:30 tv spot.
This is not a question of the reliability of the reporter [who does not remember when he was at the scene] or the truthfulness of thieves. This is a question of the unreliability of the reporter and the investigative skills of the police.
Do you really think that the robbers told police a story and they accepted it at face value?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
